Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 08:17:47 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Ports tree : Xorg-7.2 release freeze, ETA? Message-ID: <20070519221747.GD1164@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <464F7050.3010103@u.washington.edu> References: <464F6336.7040808@u.washington.edu> <464F6F06.30504@FreeBSD.org> <464F7050.3010103@u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--5vjQsMS/9MbKYGLq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2007-May-19 14:46:56 -0700, Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> w= rote: > Doug Barton wrote: >> Garrett Cooper wrote: >>> Wouldn't it be sufficient to force major component testers (in this= =20 >>> case Xorg 7.2) to use periodic snapshots of the ports tree (possibly CV= S=20 >>> branching), while allowing continued development in the ports tree? My understanding is that most of the testing was done in a separate repository. But at some stage, it needs to be committed - the approach used ensured that the changes could be tested by a larger group of people before being finally released. This particular change affected 6168 (more than 35% of) existing ports. A portupgrade of this magnitude can easily take days unless you are game to enable BATCH mode. It is simply too difficult to allow ports to be randomly changed in the midst of this upheaval. > True, but I wonder how end users are going to take to the fact that a lot= of=20 > ports were removed or changed in the 7.2 integration period. I've noticed= a=20 > lot of 'deletes' for ports when running csup today. Looking at the commit message, no ports were removed. There were 15 removed files. > Perhaps, but I think that some of these things maybe could have been hand= led=20 > differently ( / better?) if source branching was in place, both for devs = and=20 > for end-users in the X.org 7.2 evaluation phase. Maybe it would have been useful to have a 'pre 7.2 import' tag but (as is regularly pointed out) actually branching the ports tree is impractical. The ports team already has to try and keep >17,000 ports working across 3 FreeBSD branches, each with about 7 architectures. Attempting to have 'stable' and 'development' ports trees would just double the work involved and computing power necessary to do the builds. --=20 Peter Jeremy --5vjQsMS/9MbKYGLq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGT3eL/opHv/APuIcRApudAJ4ve5WuV1Mqur5eayUVBWcQXejnowCfa9OT wA2+kKO0AUi7cZ2I/4ISANk= =PDdR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5vjQsMS/9MbKYGLq--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070519221747.GD1164>